The Legal Examinerhttps://www.legalexaminer.com
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 20:40:41 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Reduced Speed Limit Proposal Aims to Enhance Boston Street Safetyhttps://www.legalexaminer.com/transportation/reduced-speed-limit-proposal-aims-to-enhance-boston-street-safety/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/transportation/reduced-speed-limit-proposal-aims-to-enhance-boston-street-safety/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 17:58:39 +0000http://233.31This fall, many citizens gathered at a Boston City Council committee meeting to express their public support for lowering the speed limit for the city’s roads. The proposed speed limit reduction would decrease the current speed limit from 25 to 20 mph; this comes less than two years after it was decreased from 30 to 25 mph.

This proposal is particularly concerned with the protection of vulnerable populations such as pedestrians, especially the elderly and school-aged children, as well as bicyclists. Some citizens feel like this long overdue, especially knowing that speed reduction may have already saved some people’s lives. Just last week, a 24-year-old Boston University graduate student, Meng Jin, was struck and killed by a dump truck while riding his bicycle on the Boston/Cambridge line. This stands as just one of many tragic examples that prove road safety should be considered a top priority for the city.

The speed reduction that took place in 2017 has already had positive results; the Institute for Highway Safety released a study that revealed promising trends in driver behavior that resulted from the 25 mph speed limit. In 2017, 29.3 percent less Boston drivers exceeded 35 mph while driving in the city. Another 8.5 percent reduction occurred in drivers exceeding 30 mph on Boston roads.

While this meeting is a promising first step in the process of reducing the city’s speed limit, more discussion and public input needs to occur before substantial action will be taken. Only time will tell if the City of Boston decides to move forward with this speed limit reduction, which could save the lives of pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicle drivers alike.

It is the jargon used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to guide how it regulates medical devices. It sounds like what Americans expect of their federal agency—that an FDA clearance means only the safest devices make it to market.

But look at little closer.

Least burdensome is regulatory language that imposes the least burden on industry, not on you! The 510(k) requires device makers to register their device and notify the FDA they intend to market it in 90 days. It’s different from a drug clearance which generally involves Premarket Notification (PMA) and years of testing and clinical trials. There is no such imposition on device makers. The company must only name a “predicate device” theirs resembles and exchange paperwork with the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), which oversees medical devices.

In other words, the FDA gently guides industry through the clearance process to assure it will get on the super highway to marketing in the least burdensome way possible.

In 2005, the average cost for a 510(K) review was about $4,000, compared to a PMA fee of about $200,000, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).A 510(k) will generally happen within 90 days as compared to up to 295 days for a PMA submission. In a 2011 review of medical device recalls by the consumer group, the National Research Center for Women & Families, more than two-thirds of the faulty devices that had caused death or serious harm went through the 510(k) clearance process. Hernia mesh is among them which also includes metal-on-metal hips and transvaginal mesh.

In other words, permanently implanted medical devices can make it to market in 90 days in the easiest clearance possible. More than 90% of medical devices make it to market through the 510(k). The FDA currently does not even have the power to require a medical device maker to fix a defective device. Instead, it relies on the manufacturer to conduct a voluntary recall. That leaves the door opened for industry to reintroduce the device at a later time.

The Institute of Medicine, in its 2011 report, (read it here) called the 510(k) clearance “fatally flawed” and suggested it be abolished but leave it to lobbyists to weigh in. AdvaMed (Advanced Medical Technology Association) concluded changes weren’t needed and the reports of injuries were overblown, even though more than half of all device recalls (51%) from 2005 to 2010 were cleared through the 510(k).

The FDA appears to be more of a lap dog than a fearless watchdog most Americans rely on to keep them safe.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/health/fda-approved-medical-devices-least-burdensome-for-whom/feed/0Liability Medicare Set-Asides: The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truthhttps://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/liability-medicare-set-asides-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/liability-medicare-set-asides-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 14:57:22 +0000http://232.53Problem 1) There is still an incredible amount of misinformation in the marketplace about Liability MSAs.

Despite efforts to raise awareness and educate stakeholders about LMSAs, many of the largest liability insurance carriers are still convinced that failure to address Medicare’s future interests on liability case creates exposure for them. There is a contingent of MSP compliance “experts” and MSA vendors who have persuaded the insurance industry that if they do not establish an MSA when resolving a liability claim, then CMS can levy serious fines, penalties, or bring legal action against them. These scare tactics can adversely impact the resolution of a liability claim. The carriers have become so concerned about the issue that they have started to mandate an MSA on every liability case involving a Medicare-eligible plaintiff where future medical costs were either claimed or released.

The most common issue regarding exposure raised by some MSA vendors is that CMS can impose a lien post-settlement on a closed case; thereby retroactively exposing the carrier for not properly extinguishing all the liens. This argument is completely without merit. Since there are no regulations or statutes empowering Medicare to take any punitive action against a carrier related to Medicare covered services after settlement, insurance carriers should concentrate on liability for conditional payments and Section 111 reporting requirements.

Problem 2) Attorneys are ignoring the potential MSA issue instead of proactively addressing it early on with the plaintiff.

The MSA issue is most frequently brought up at the end of the settlement when there has never been a prior discussion during negotiations. As such, plaintiff attorneys are often caught off guard with unsubstantiated demands by the defendant. The injury victim is blindsided as well by the fact they may be getting less money in their pocket to spend freely because some of it will need to be earmarked for Medicare’s purposes. The insurance carriers are worried because they firmly believe they have exposure for failure to address the issue. Therefore, the carriers are oftentimes pushing the MSA as a contingency of the settlement. In situations where the MSA is not a material term of the settlement, MSP provisions are frequently presented at the time the release is signed; which is typically done through an MSA addendum with numerous stipulations. Disagreement on whether an MSA is appropriate has unfortunately become the norm when settling catastrophic liability cases with a Medicare-eligible plaintiff. These frequent occurrences leave all involved with a bad taste in their mouth about “Medicare Set-Asides”.

The plaintiff’s bar can no longer pretend as if the MSA issue does not exist. Many plaintiff attorneys believe that they do not need to do anything with respect to protecting Medicare’s future interests. While it is true there is currently no regulation or law that mandates a Medicare Set-Aside, it does not mean there will be no consequences if a plaintiff attempts to shift the burden to Medicare for future injury-related care. It is very clear from Medicare’s public statements that the agency believes that set-asides are the best method to protect the program from paying for injury-related care when future medical costs are funded by a settlement[1]. Additionally, and most importantly for trial lawyers, CMS has stated in recent meetings with stakeholders that the MSA issue is strictly a plaintiff issue[2]. This means plaintiff counsel has the liability and exposure for a malpractice claim if things go wrong post settlement.

Action Step: Start early in educating the injury victim about all MSP compliance issues.

Instead of ignoring the MSA issue or being reactive to it when the defendant brings it up at the end of the case, it is incumbent on the plaintiff attorney to introduce the possibility and concept of an MSA to their Medicare eligible client at the very beginning of the case. Plaintiff’s counsel has legal malpractice risks if they fail to properly advise the client regarding the set-aside issue when they are currently eligible to receive Medicare benefits. Best practices are for plaintiff’s counsel to consult with experts about proper Medicare compliance techniques, educate the plaintiff on the issues surrounding the MSP statue and then document what they have done to comply with the MSP statute.

The MSA is an insurance policy not a scare tactic.

A Medicare Set-Aside account is an insurance policy for all parties involved. If the plaintiff spends down the MSA funds appropriately, then their medical insurance (Medicare benefits) will never be disrupted. Once the set-aside account is exhausted, an injury victim gets full Medicare coverage without Medicare ever looking to the remaining settlement dollars to provide for any Medicare covered health care. It is like an insurance deductible in the sense that once the funds have been spent down appropriately, Medicare will then kick in and start to pay again. If the plaintiff were to pass away prematurely, then the MSA funds remaining in the account would go to the plaintiff’s beneficiaries.

From the plaintiff attorney’s standpoint, simply having a discussion with the plaintiff about the potential implications of failing to protect the Medicare Trust Fund is protection against getting sued for legal malpractice. Take as an example, Synergy received a panic-stricken call from a plaintiff attorney who told us that he resolved a claim for $80k several years prior but recently had received a disturbing phone call from his former client who informed him that Medicare refused to pay for a shoulder surgery on the basis that it was related to her accident. This former client was threatening a legal malpractice claim and a bar complaint because the trial attorney never advised the client that there was any possibility that Medicare could deny benefits. This type of scenario can be avoided by a conversation with the plaintiff about the MSP statute and properly considering Medicare’s future interests.

When discussing the potential for an MSA, one way it can be presented to the plaintiff is that there is a very high likelihood that Medicare will continue to pay for their ongoing, accident-related care post-settlement. However, if Medicare happens to audit their file, CMS does have the authority under the MSP statute, to deny making payments on their behalf, either temporarily or indefinitely until Medicare’s interests have been properly considered.

Will Medicare continue to pay for future injury related care going forward? That is anyone’s best guess, but CMS has spent a tremendous amount of time and resources to insure the Medicare trust fund gets protected. If the plaintiff agrees to set aside funds in a self-administered MSA account, they may opt to take a “wait and see” approach as it relates to medical care. If Medicare continues to pay for treatment, then the MSA account would simply function as a specialty savings account. If after a prolonged period, Medicare has been paying for their accident-related care, then they may elect to do something else with their MSA monies. If Medicare ever came back and said they should not have paid a bill or attempted to deny benefits, the plaintiff would still have the set-aside in place and would possibly get the benefit of reimbursing Medicare at the Medicare allowable rate. That would mean fewer dollars spent on medical care if they had paid directly at the time of the treatment[3]. If the plaintiff is proactively using the set-aside account, they are billed at the usual and customary fee schedule or the cash price (AKA the lowest rate they could negotiate with provider).

Conclusion

An MSA potentially introduces another level of complexity to the file, which may contribute to unwanted delays in receiving the settlement funds. We frequently get involved in cases where the defendant insists on an MSA or the plaintiff is not even eligible for Medicare benefits. It is not always a cut-and-dry issue of whether the MSA is appropriate. Synergy has also seen firsthand on many occasions where there is agreement by the respective settlement parties to do a set-aside but there is a large discrepancy on the amount that should be earmarked for the MSA account.

Due to the foregoing, there needs to be greater education amongst the plaintiff and defense about the real potential implications of failing to adequately consider Medicare’s future interests. The settlement parties must be proactive regarding the potential for an LMSA: which party is going to handle preparation of the MSA analysis, and how much, if any, is going to be set aside, based on all the facts of the case. Plaintiff’s counsel should insist on controlling the MSA process from start to finish. Many of our clients engage us to do a preliminary MSA analysis prior to sending out a demand package. That way, the MSA amount is already established as an element of damages that must be addressed before the claim can be resolved.

[3] It should be noted that using the funds proactively from the set-aside account is always a best practice. CMS has also telegraphed that formal guidelines on LMSAs will get the benefit of the Medicare allowable rate which is not the case now.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/liability-medicare-set-asides-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth/feed/0Using Structured Settlements with Trusts to Mitigate Higher Tax Liabilityhttps://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/using-structured-settlements-with-trusts-to-mitigate-higher-tax-liability/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/using-structured-settlements-with-trusts-to-mitigate-higher-tax-liability/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 14:54:35 +0000http://232.52The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed into law at the end of 2017, had a significant impact on how individuals and trusts are taxed. This article will explore the changes that are most relevant to injury victims and strategies for avoiding or mitigating the increase in tax liability.

First, it will be helpful to briefly review how trusts are taxed because trusts are a prudent way for injury victims to manage settlement proceeds. For the most part, trusts are taxed in the same way that individuals are taxed. Distributed income is taxed at the beneficiary’s tax rate and results in an income deduction for the trust. Accumulated income is taxed at the same rate as the trust. Injury victims with a resulting disability and public benefits, such as SSI or Medicaid, may find it necessary to place their funds in a Special Needs Trust (SNT) to protect benefit eligibility. Injury victims without those needs may wish to use a settlement management trust to preserve funds for the future. First-party trusts (those funded with the beneficiary’s own funds, like those from a settlement) are considered grantor trusts. All income and expenses of a grantor trust are attributable to the “grantor,” who is generally also the beneficiary. For this reason, an injury victim who has or is considering setting up a first-party trust must understand how the new tax laws impact taxation of their trust.

As part of the TCJA, many of the deductions previously available to trust beneficiaries have been eliminated, resulting in higher taxable income across the board, even if the beneficiary took no distributions. This hurts beneficiaries with high trust administration expenses because those expenses can no longer be deducted from the trust’s income.

The impact of the new tax law was felt especially hard for anyone under the age of 19 (24 if the person is a college student) due to an increase in “Kiddie Tax” rates. Prior to the TCJA, a child’s unearned income (such as that received from a trust) beyond the threshold of $2,100 was taxed at the parent’s rate. The amount the child receives beyond the threshold is now taxed at the same rate as trusts and estates. Adults pay the highest tax rate (37%) when their taxable income exceeds $600,000. Trusts pay at this rate when taxable income reaches only $12,500. This means that instead of paying at the same tax rate as their parents, a child whose trust income exceeds $12,500 will now jump into the top tax bracket. In some cases this will increase the tax bill by thousands of dollars, potentially doubling it from just a year ago.

What this means for injury victims, particularly injury victims who are minors, is that careful preparations must be made for funds received from settlements. One strategy for avoiding this tax is to utilize a structured settlement as a funding mechanism for the trust since these payments remain tax-free. It is important to remember that if a structured settlement is selected, payment from the defendant must go directly to the selected life insurance company. If funds are received by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney, the funds will be considered actually or constructively received and a structured settlement will no longer be an option.

For the injury victim who also has public benefits, such as SSI or Medicaid, payments can be made from a structured settlement into a Special Needs Trust (SNT) to protect eligibility. Special language is required in the settlement documents to accomplish protection of the structure from being countable income. Further, selecting a trust with low administrative expenses is even more important because the cost is no longer deductible. A solution that keeps these costs low is utilizing a pooled special needs trust. These trusts are operated by non-profit organizations and the cost of administration (trustee fees, investment costs, etc.) is shared by those who have sub-accounts within the pool. This means costs are much lower than private banks but provide many of the same benefits, like having access to a corporate trustee.

Pooled Trust Services created pooled settlement trusts specifically for the types of personal injury settlements discussed above. The Settlement Management National Pooled Trust (SMNPT) is a pooled settlement management trust that offers injury victims a low-cost trust solution for their settlement. By joining the SMNPT, an injury victim can protect their settlement proceeds, have professional management of their money with affordable trustee fees and obtain needed healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act.

Pooled Trust Services also offers a pooled SNT that can be used anywhere in the United States for clients who are disabled and are receiving SSI/Medicaid. The Settlement Solutions National Pooled Trust (SSNPT) is a low-cost SNT solution. SSNPT’s fees are among the lowest in the country. Even though it is low cost, it has world class customer service and unique features. For example, this trust partners with TEAM services for those family members who are being paid as caregivers. This allows them to work on behalf of their family member yet have workers’ compensation coverage in addition to having payroll automatically handled.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/using-structured-settlements-with-trusts-to-mitigate-higher-tax-liability/feed/0Ignore Medicare’s recovery rights at your peril! Plaintiff firm settles with the U.S. Government for inadequately addressing and repaying Medicare Conditional Payments.https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/ignore-medicares-recovery-rights-at-your-peril-plaintiff-firm-settles-with-the-u-s-government-for-inadequately-addressing-and-repaying-medicare-conditional-payments/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/ignore-medicares-recovery-rights-at-your-peril-plaintiff-firm-settles-with-the-u-s-government-for-inadequately-addressing-and-repaying-medicare-conditional-payments/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 14:53:04 +0000http://232.51On June 18, 2018 the U.S. Department of Justice’s Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced a recently concluded settlement with a plaintiff firm involving the repayment of Medicare Conditional Payments. The government’s investigation arose under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act, which authorizes Medicare, as a secondary payer, to make conditional payments for medical items or services under certain circumstances. When an injured person receives a settlement or judgment, Medicare regulations require entities who receive the settlement or judgment proceeds, such as the injured person’s attorney, to repay Medicare within 60 days for its conditional payments.

In their claim, the government alleged that Rosenbaum failed to submit timely payment for nine (9) of his cases between May 10, 2011 through March 2, 2017. Pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act,42 U.S.C. $ 1395y, if Medicare does not receive timely repayment, these same regulations permit the government to recover the conditional payments from the injured person’s attorney and others who received the settlement or judgment proceeds.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Rosenbaum agreed to pay a lump sum of $28,000. Rosenbaum also agreed to (1) designate a person at the firm responsible for paying Medicare secondary payer debts; (2) train the designated employee to ensure that the firm pays these debts on a timely basis; and (3) review any outstanding debts with the designated employee at least every six months to ensure compliance. In addition, Rosenbaum acknowledged that any failure to submit timely repayment of Medicare secondary payer debt may result in liability for the wrongful retention of a government overpayment under the False Claims Act. You can review the settlement agreement HERE

In their press announcement the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was clear.

“This settlement agreement should remind personal injury lawyers and others of their obligation to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments after receiving settlement or judgment proceeds for their clients. ‘When an attorney fails to reimburse Medicare, the United States can recover from the attorney—even if the attorney already transmitted the proceeds to the client,’ said U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain. ‘Congress enacted these rules to ensure timely repayment from responsible parties, and we intend to hold attorneys accountable for failing to make good on their obligations.’”

In addition to utilizing the Medicare Secondary Payer Act as means to ensure compliance, the U.S. Attorney’s office reminds trial counsel of the applicability of the Federal False Claim Act. As part of the settlement agreement Rosenbaum acknowledged:

“…failure to submit timely repayment of Medicare Secondary Payer debts may result in its liability for the wrongful retention of a government overpayment pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. $$ 3729(a)(1XD), (G), and other applicable law.”

A violation of the False Claims Act can result in triple damages, attorney’s fees, and fines (per each fraudulent claim).

Synergy’s Medicare services are designed to ensure that the trial attorney complies with obligations to Medicare while at the same time making sure the injury victim realizes as much of their settlement proceeds as possible. Our Medicare Audit & Verification Services will take the entire Medicare reporting and auditing process off your plate and allow you to focus on what you do best. This service includes the utilization of a little known process allowing expedited disputing of unrelated charges and obtaining a final conditional payment amount before mediation.

Once settlement has been secured and a Final Demand obtained from Medicare, Synergy can continue working to add value to your case by attempting to secure a refund of the Final Demand payment from Medicare. To date, Synergy has obtained over $5,000,000 in refunds for our clients. Understanding the complex world of Medicare Conditional Payments is necessary to not only avoid potential pitfalls, but also to maximize your client’s recovery.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/ignore-medicares-recovery-rights-at-your-peril-plaintiff-firm-settles-with-the-u-s-government-for-inadequately-addressing-and-repaying-medicare-conditional-payments/feed/0Attorney Fee Deferrals: Don’t Wait! The Time is Now to Defer Taxation of Contingent Legal Feeshttps://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/attorney-fee-deferrals-dont-wait-the-time-is-now-to-defer-taxation-of-contingent-legal-fees/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/attorney-fee-deferrals-dont-wait-the-time-is-now-to-defer-taxation-of-contingent-legal-fees/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 14:51:56 +0000http://232.50Investing your fees in a pre-tax and tax deferred attorney fee deferral program is a very smart way to plan for the future. Attorney fee deferral programs are created for a variety of reasons. Based upon your specific planning needs and objectives, you can defer your contingent legal fees to:

Most attorneys use fee deferrals for traditional retirement planning purposes. Attorneys can utilize normal retirement plans as part of their overall portfolio. They can use IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401(k)s or other traditional options available to non-lawyers. These options are usually the starting point for a retirement savings plan. However, attorneys can utilize fee deferrals to uncap the amount they can invest pre-tax each year and eliminate early withdrawal penalties associated with traditional retirement plans.

The benefits and ways to use attorney fee deferrals are many. The problem is that attorneys generally do not leverage them the way they should. In an industry that creates billions of dollars of contingent legal fees each year, a very small percentage are deferred using attorney fee deferral programs. When it comes to retirement planning, the one mistake you cannot make is doing nothing at all. You must do something!

Choosing the right plan or deferral time frame isn’t as important as creating a systematic program of deferring fees and sticking with it. The program can be modified and new deferrals can account for changes that might become necessary in the future. If you defer too long, you can defer your next one for a shorter time frame. If you defer too short, you can defer your next fee for a longer period. If you think the rate of return in one program is low, you can utilize a different plan the next time. You can change the plans and adapt along the way. The one thing you cannot change is the missed opportunity if you fail to defer.

The power of deferral is a function of two variables: time and interest rate. The earlier you defer and the longer the duration, the more exponential growth you will experience. To illustrate, take a hypothetical 45 year old lawyer whose birthday is July 28th. If he or she defers a $25,000 fee on October 1, 2018, here are the numeric differences at 5 year intervals using an assumed 5% interest rate:

Age 50: $31,803.43

Age 55: $40,815.21

Age 60: $52,380.55

Age 65: $67,223.04

As you can see, the compounding of interest starts to multiply very rapidly after 10 years. The 5% used above is a very conservative assumed interest rate. The average rate of return of the S&P 500 over the last 90 years is over 9%. Here is the same $25,000 fee deferral at 9% assumed interest rate:

Financial stability is also a driver in your mental and physical health. According to the Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index and other studies, Americans with greater financial stability are in better physical and mental condition. Good health into your retirement years can create a longer income-generating life and decrease your overall health costs in retirement. Developing a plan is a win/win!

Fee Deferral must start today if you want to be prepared for when you retire. The decisions about plan design are less important and can be changed as you grow into your plan. The decision to defer a $25,000 fee is not going to have a major impact on your life in 20 years. However, if you wait 5 years to start it will be far less impactful. The Washington Post reported that the biggest regret for Americans was not saving for retirement. Do not become a statistic. Start your fee deferral program today.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/attorney-fee-deferrals-dont-wait-the-time-is-now-to-defer-taxation-of-contingent-legal-fees/feed/0FDA Approves Controversial New Opiatehttps://www.legalexaminer.com/health/fda-approves-controversial-new-opiate/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/health/fda-approves-controversial-new-opiate/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 17:49:31 +0000http://120.41In a press release earlier this month, the FDA announced that it had voted 10-3 that they would push forward a contentious new pharmaceutical into the market despite warnings from Senators, NGOs and fellow FDA members.

The new opiate, Dsuvia, is 10 times stronger than infamous Fentanyl and over 1000 times stronger than morphine. Critics worry this drug will only exacerbate the opioid epidemic that plagues the United States. Proponents for the drug claim it will fill an essential niche in the market of emergency medicine.

The new drug’s small 30 microgram dosage is meant to be used in medical emergencies where pain relief cannot be attained intravenously or orally. The FDA is releasing the medication with stringent guidelines in an attempt to prevent it from becoming another factor in the growing epidemic.

Dsuvia is available exclusively in professional medical settings, such as a clinic or a hospital, and is not available as a prescription. The drug is administered under the patient’s tongue and provides faster relief than other drugs on the market.

One of the driving reasons behind Dsuvia’s controversial acceptance was that it could be used by the military. In the battlefield, dispensing pain relief in a more traditional manner such as intravenously or orally can be a difficult task as the environment is often unpredictable. Since Dsuvia is administered sublingually, there is hope this drug will present a new way to deliver pain relief to those in the precarious situations of war. Despite the drug’s promises, critics are still unconvinced that another opioid was necessary and assert it may only result in a higher human cost.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/health/fda-approves-controversial-new-opiate/feed/0California Catholic Church is Not Reporting the Number of Priests Who Abused Childrenhttps://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/california-catholic-church-is-not-reporting-the-number-of-priests-who-abused-children/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/california-catholic-church-is-not-reporting-the-number-of-priests-who-abused-children/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 20:40:34 +0000http://85.81

Facing a firestorm of public scrutiny and increased media attention, archdioceses and dioceses in California continue to under report the number of priests who’ve faced sexual abuse allegations in the past and present.

Some bishops have argued that priests who don’t belong to their diocese do not need to be reported, even though they worked within the diocese. This is the strategy adopted by San Jose Bishop Patrick McGrath who reported that his diocese had only 15 such priests even though an independent investigation found an additional 18 priests. McGrath argues he wasn’t required to report those priests because they belonged to religious orders and weren’t under the authority of the diocesan bishop. That’s just not true. In order to work as a priest in any geographical location in the United States, the priest, whether religious order or diocesan, must receive faculties (permission) from the bishop himself. That makes the bishop responsible for him.

The Archdioceses of Los Angeles and San Francisco have significantly under reported the number of priests who’ve been accused of sexual abuse of a minor as well. They are not the only ones. The Diocese of Oakland in 2004 released a list of 24 credibly accused priests, and an investigation by this news organization in 2008 reported that 64 priests who had served in the East Bay had been accused of sexual abuse, either while working within the Oakland Diocese or at another outside the area. One of the most egregious abusers on the list is Stephen Kiesle, a priest who was placed on three year’s probation in 1978 for molesting two boys at Our Lady of the Rosary in Union City and was later arrested and charged with molesting three girls at Santa Paula in Fremont in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was was allowed to continue serving in a number of Bay Area parishes and ministries until the mid-1980s before being defrocked in 1987. He was sentenced in 2004 to six years in prison for abusing a 15-year old girl.

New on the list is Milton Eggerling, a priest who was accused of sexually abusing a boy in Austin, Texas, from 1973 to 1978. Before leaving for Texas, Eggerling was at Corpus Christi in Piedmont. He returned to Oakland in 1980 and later worked at the San Jose Diocese and at St. Patrick’s Church in Rodeo. He died in 2008. Anthony Rodrigue of the Dominican order served at St. Albert’s Priory in Oakland but was not named as an abuser by the Oakland diocese in 2004 despite having been sentenced in 1998 to 10 years in prison for abusing youth in Southern California before he came to the East Bay.

While many of the Catholic dioceses in California have told the press that they are actively reviewing their files in order to publish accurate lists of priests accused of sexual abuse, it is highly unlikely that any of the dioceses can be trusted to disclose complete lists.

It’s time for the California Attorney General to initiate a state-wide investigation of each and every archdiocese and diocese. Courageous survivors have waited too long and been lied to all too often for anything short of full disclosure and a reckoning in the criminal and civil court systems.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/california-catholic-church-is-not-reporting-the-number-of-priests-who-abused-children/feed/0Support the Bairs Foundation on Black Friday (At No Cost to You)https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/support-the-bairs-foundation-on-black-friday-at-no-cost-to-you/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/support-the-bairs-foundation-on-black-friday-at-no-cost-to-you/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 16:01:02 +0000http://212.559With the advent of online shopping culture came a new way to shop Black Friday, and it just keeps getting better. Online shoppers can get many of the same deals from the comfort of their post-Thanksgiving pajamas.

If you’re planning to shop on Amazon this Black Friday, you can support the Bairs Foundation while you’re at it — and at no additional cost to you. By adding the foundation as your charity of choice on Amazon Smile, the purchases you would make anyway will benefit the work we do. Our unique charity link is: https://smile.amazon.com/ch/81-1207829

What is Amazon Smile?

AmazonSmile is a simple, automatic way for shoppers to support their favorite organization. Tens of millions of products on AmazonSmile are labeled as eligible for donations. The AmazonSmile Foundation will donate 0.5% of the purchase price from your eligible AmazonSmile purchases to the eligible charitable organization of your choice.

Getting Started with Amazon Smile

On your first visit to AmazonSmile, you’ll select a charitable organization to receive donations from your eligible purchases. Amazon will remember your selection, and then every eligible purchase you make at smile.amazon.com will result in a donation. Items available on AmazonSmile are the same price as those on Amazon.com.

Interested in changing your charity of choice to the Bairs Foundation? To change your organization on AmazonSmile, sign in to smile.amazon.com and select “Your Account” from the navigation at the top of any page. Then, select “Change your Charity.” This option is available at the bottom of the page on mobile browsers.

Why Choose The Bairs Foundation?

The Bairs Foundation provides funding to help plaintiffs in need cover daily living expenses as they pursue litigation. So far, we have funded more than 150 plaintiffs and their families with a total of almost $1 million. However, this number is only 44 percent of the total requests we have received. It is clear there is a huge need for what we’re doing in this industry.

We need your help to continue our mission and expand our reach. As the first 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in the plaintiff-funding industry, your support is critical to our success in funding families nationwide and influencing other non-profits to replicate our model. Any and all support is much appreciated.

]]>https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/support-the-bairs-foundation-on-black-friday-at-no-cost-to-you/feed/0Scholarships for Children of Injured Workershttps://www.legalexaminer.com/workplace/scholarships-for-children-of-injured-workers/
https://www.legalexaminer.com/workplace/scholarships-for-children-of-injured-workers/#respondFri, 16 Nov 2018 21:55:43 +0000http://186.89Broken backs, occupational cancer, traumatic brain injuries…it’s no secret that catastrophic workers’ compensation injuries in North Carolina cause devastating physical pain, disability, and even death to affected workers. But what about the children of those injured workers?

As the families of injured workers in North Carolina know all too well, a serious work injury, disease, or death impacts the whole family. The devastating financial and emotional toll should not also stifle the dreams of children who, before the catastrophe suddenly changed their life, had planned to attend college or technical school.

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper has declared this week —November 12 to 16, 2018— Kids’ Chance Awareness Week. The nonprofit organization Kids’ Chance of North Carolina provides financial scholarships to help children of workers seriously injured or killed while working for a North Carolina employer. The organization started in 2004 and has awarded scholarships totaling more than $450,000. Scholarship funds come from donations by individuals, groups, organizations, foundations and medical, legal and other professionals. Current annual scholarship amounts range from $2,000 to $5,000 and are determined based on the student’s financial need.

By making this important proclamation, Governor Cooper hopes to increase the visibility of scholarship opportunities for the children of victims of a catastrophic work injury, occupational disease, or death. If you or someone you know has suffered financial distress due to the work injury, disease, or death of a parent, click here to learn how to apply for need-based scholarships.